Report: Obama doubles down on new contraception rule at Democratic retreat

posted at 9:35 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

But … what about the big climbdown? Ah well. Maybe he took a second look at what Planned Parenthood did to Komen and thought better of it. Even the man who leads the greatest army in the world needs to know when he’s outgunned.

Besides, how many divisions does the Pope have?

President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned…

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? Also, I’m pretty sure religiously-affiliated groups don’t claim the power to decide whether women employees should “use” contraception; if they did, we wouldn’t be having a conversation over who should pay for the contraception that their employees use. (Answer: You should, of course, by paying higher premiums to subsidize the cost of birth control to the insurer.) If you missed it at the Weekly Standard, go read the Hawaii “compromise” proposal that’s kicking around in Democratic circles. In lieu of making religiously-affiliated groups pay, the new rule instead would … force them to tell employees where they can go to get birth control — i.e. “the Catholic Church must directly send women to drugs and devices that are morally wrong and can do harm to them.” It’s as if HHS’s supporters don’t understand the core objection to the policy. It’s not the money, it’s the compulsion applied to the group to promote activity that it considers immoral as a matter of faith. Or maybe they understand it just fine and that’s the real point of all this — to pressure religious holdouts into promoting contraception, however grudgingly, in order to remove any last lingering bits of stigma attached to it. After all, if the Hawaii compromise is on the table, then it’s not really about the money for HHS’s supporters either.

The GOP is already working on a bill to rescind the HHS rule, which means political war until this is resolved. How eager are swing-state Democrats to end up in no man’s land? Over to you, Tim Kaine:

“I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious employer exemption,” Kaine said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by his campaign.

“This is something that’s been talked about a lot today and I have definitely expressed my grave concerns to the White House about that. I support the contraception mandate but there should be a religious employer exemption that is broader than the one they proposed.”

Kaine, who is Catholic, has spoken frequently about the importance of faith throughout his career. He has cited it in discussing his opposition to the death penalty and his position on abortion. Kaine says he is personally opposed to abortion and has supported some restrictions, but he does not believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Remember, this is a guy who was handpicked by Obama to lead the DNC in 2009 who’s now inching away from him. Bob Casey, another pro-life Catholic Democrat from a swing state (Pennsylvania), also called on O today to rescind the rule for groups with faith missions. Can’t wait to hear from other vulnerable Dems like Jon Tester as the battle is joined, just like I can’t wait to hear how lifelike talking-points robot Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ends up finessing her comments here down the road when O does finally start to climb down. Exit question: Who’s going to pay for the employees’ contraception when some of these religiously-affiliated groups end up shutting down in protest, as some Catholic charities have already begun to do vis-a-vis considering gays for adoption?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Please Vlad, its gutless moralists that can not compete successfully based on ability alone. This all was started by wealthy parents that did not want to see little JR or MISSY getting their butts kicked in the real world….. because they themselves were afraid to be parents……

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

@Igor R.

I have no idea what this is referring to, but I do like that he called you “Vlad.”

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM

@Igor R.

I have no idea what this is referring to, but I do like that he called you “Vlad.”

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM

At least I didn’t get “the Impaler” part.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Yep, time to end this ride. I went to an engineering school when physics was physics, no one pretended to bend light. Both my daughters graduated from liberal universities and did not drink the kool-aid. Math is hard!

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Yep, time to end this ride. I went to an engineering school when physics was physics, no one pretended to bend light. Both my daughters graduated from liberal universities and did not drink the kool-aid. Math is hard!

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Yes, if you learn math it doesn’t matter if you learn if from a liberal or conservative.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM

At least I didn’t get “the Impaler” part.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM

That’s what she said.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Bingo…..and Vlad was an aquired nom der plume applied to all “Igor’s”

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

No surprise. I predicted Obama would double down. I am Catholic, but I appreciate Obama doubling down, he is only waking up more and more Catholics to VOTE against him. Which will really hurt him in November.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Agreed. But to a point – Obama is simply using the time-tested Alinksy playbook to manufacture a crisis in an attempt to divide and conquer the Catholic faith.

The Obama Regime is hoping this lasts long enough for the Church to cave or to pull the plug on their insurance policies. Regardless if it throws Tim Kaine (God, he HAS to be thrilled running against George Allen… and AWAY from Obama) Bob Casey and Bill Dailey under the bus.

Interestingly enough, this whole saga unintentionally benefits Rick Santorum – the lone social conservative left in the GOP primary field – while that mess continues to slug along.

I’m not saying that Obama has bitten off more than he can chew. Rather, it’s more of a rare moment of clarity into who he REALLY is. One we’ve known all along, but most (especially those who thought he’s “in over his head”) haven’t.

Myron Falwell on February 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Bingo…..and Vlad was an aquired nom der plume applied to all “Igor’s”

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Thought that was Vampires……?

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Bingo…..and Vlad was an aquired nom der plume applied to all “Igor’s”

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

What does that mean??? <:-S (perplexed guy getting headache)

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

That’s what she said.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

You win some you lose some.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Bingo…..and Vlad was an aquired nom der plume applied to all “Igor’s”

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Where, in the Spanish civil war?

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

<:-S (perplexed guy getting headache)

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

not seeing it.

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

not seeing it.

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Kinda looks like “Oh sh*t my beach umbrella didn’t open and then fell down!”

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:46 PM

not seeing it.

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Shhh. It’s a real thing. Don’t worry about it.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:46 PM

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

We applied it to radar signatures running from the east toward the west…..there was not alot of wiggle room.

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Where, in the Spanish civil war?

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

LOL Oh, that hurts when I laugh.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

It is vampires. Vlad the Impaler

He was also called by the names Vlad III, Vlad Dracula and Vlad the Impaler.

Prince of Wallachia (1431–1476), also known by his patronymic name Dracula

Not a pen name for a lab assistant.

get your eastern european legends straight!!

Pesky kids and yer loud music….

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

We applied it to radar signatures running from the east toward the west…..there was not alot of wiggle room.

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Is everything you say a trick designed to make me think I am losing my mind?

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

LOL Oh, that hurts when I laugh.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

That will teach you to go on line so soon after a Caesarian.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

No, think air defense, interception, coldwar, Russians. Hope that helps.

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

That will teach you to go on line so soon after a Caesarian.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

LOL No, that’s not it. My ‘baby’ is three. I think I have bronchitis. <:-( (sorrowful face that almost brings a hot tear to your eye). Also you missed my hilarious "To Serve Man" joke earlier.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Is everything you say a trick designed to make me think I am losing my mind?

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

He is talking about some russian planes that he evidently had a lot of pet names for.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

No, think air defense, interception, coldwar, Russians. Hope that helps.

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

And you publicly referred to your Russian enemies as “Igors” but their secret code name was “Vlad?” Sure. That makes sense. You’re an engineer, right?

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

LOL No, that’s not it. My ‘baby’ is three. I think I have bronchitis. <:-( (sorrowful face that almost brings a hot tear to your eye). Also you missed my hilarious "To Serve Man" joke earlier.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

“To Serve Man” is the only useful function for a woman, there is nothing funny about that.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

I don’t think it will be overturned. Since when did the government carve out exemptions for organizations based on their religious beliefs?

Since 1789.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

He is talking about some russian planes that he evidently had a lot of pet names for.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Ah. Well, maybe they were cute or something. So you really have no desire to make hilarious commentary in the headlines, eh? There’s a post about Japanese zookeepers who filmed themselves dressing up as a Rhino and simulating a breakout. For reals. I just don’t get you.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

I don’t think it will be overturned. Since when did the government carve out exemptions for organizations based on their religious beliefs?

Since 1789.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

“To Serve Man” is the only useful function for a woman, there is nothing funny about that.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Thought that was a cookbook a la Rod Serling circa 1962….I’m completely lost.

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Ah. Well, maybe they were cute or something. So you really have no desire to make hilarious commentary in the headlines, eh? There’s a post about Japanese zookeepers who filmed themselves dressing up as a Rhino and simulating a breakout. For reals. I just don’t get you.

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

This sounds like my typical day, why would I find it interesting enough to comment?

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

“To Serve Man” is the only useful function for a woman, there is nothing funny about that.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Mr. Chambers, Mr. Chambers! Don’t get on that ship!

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Thought that was a cookbook a la Rod Serling circa 1962….I’m completely lost.

Tim_CA on February 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Actually “To Serve Man” was a cannibal cookbook.

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Not really…it was an alien cookbook for cooking humans for alien consumption.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

This sounds like my typical day, why would I find it interesting enough to comment?

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Hmmmm. Not buying it.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Here’s a couple more that are in wide use: Darling, Honey and Sweetie.

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Not really…it was an alien cookbook for cooking humans for alien consumption.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I used to love watching those old Twilight Zone episodes.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Resist We Much on February 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

I LOVE your name. . . MUCH!

DrStock on February 8, 2012 at 10:44 PM

The world according to Al Sharpton, who claims that I’m a member of a “vast, WHITE-wing conspiracy.”

NOT.KIDDING.

Trent Lott had to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate for saying something foolish, but he was only trying to be nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.

Al Sharpton, who has incited riots resulting in murders and is a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe, gets his own talk show on MSNBC.

Resist We Much on February 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

I used to love watching those old Twilight Zone episodes.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Great link.

“To serve Man” was a classic….one of the best.

Tim_CA on February 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Here’s a couple more that are in wide use: Darling, Honey and Sweetie.

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I like it. Makes the whole endeavor sound a lot less lethal and a lot more affectionate.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Hmmmm. Not buying it.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Well, OK, I never read them.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Like any good marriage, we don’t care (that much) anymore!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

So… we have the anti-Christian party and the Republicans. Guess who my Catholic extended family will be voting against.

theCork on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Well, OK, I never read them.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Well that seems rude. Allah goes to a lot of trouble to try and find items to amuse and entertain us, you know. Also we’re helping him work through some issues. For example, he has a lot of anxiety regarding the idea of being abandoned by his cats.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Like any good marriage, we don’t care (that much) anymore!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Are you retired now?

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Well that seems rude. Allah goes to a lot of trouble to try and find items to amuse and entertain us, you know. Also we’re helping him work through some issues. For example, he has a lot of anxiety regarding the idea of being abandoned by his cats.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

How do you even learn factoids like that?

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM

How do you even learn factoids like that?

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Factoids like what?

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Factoids like what?

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Allah’s cat abandonment anxiety?

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

For example, he has a lot of anxiety regarding the idea of being abandoned by his cats.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Not gonna do it, wouldn’t be prudent……issshh!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Allah’s cat abandonment anxiety?

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Well, that I made up for comic effect. But if you read the headlines regularly, you’d notice certain patterns that can’t help but show us how he thinks. You see, he has the entire internet full of interesting little items to choose from but his eye tends to be drawn to certain categories in a predictable manner.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Well, that I made up for comic effect. But if you read the headlines regularly, you’d notice certain patterns that can’t help but show us how he thinks. You see, he has the entire internet full of interesting little items to choose from but his eye tends to be drawn to certain categories in a predictable manner.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I’m sorry, I haven’t bought into his personality cult.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:28 AM

I’m sorry, I haven’t bought into his personality cult.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Actually, you two are eerily similar in many ways.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

I think a world with out politically correct liberals would be far more tolerable than one w/o kittys!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Two thoughts keep coming back to me.
1) Obama wants to do everything he can to push the populace into and under as much government control as possible, by hook or crook. This of course is the pat, and obvious theory/belief. However, knowing how much such actions are causing more and more people – even on the “other” side of the aisle – to balk at Obama and his over-reaching, I consider a second thought. 2) Obama really doesn’t want a second term but he has to play as if he does.

So it’s all out and it’s win/win no matter what for him. If he loses re-election, he gets what he wants and the majority of the populace gets what they want. If he wins re-election, he’ll bear through another four years and have “fun” continuing to mess with the nation, and make things even more intolerable.

In the mean-time, he tries to see exactly how much crap he can get to stick.

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM

I’m sorry, I haven’t bought into his personality cult.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Also, it’s not a cult. It’s not like we have T-shirts or anything.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Actually, you two are eerily similar in many ways.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

It’s a fight for supremacy among equals!

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Also, it’s not a cult. It’s not like we have T-shirts or anything.

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Stalin didn’t have a t-shirt either.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM

In the mean-time, he tries to see exactly how much crap he can get to stick.

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM

and how is this accepted, what affords him the latitude, why is this ok?

All Hail!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM

How about we don’t take a chance that’s his plan and vote him out?

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Stalin didn’t have a t-shirt either.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Do you know something I don’t? Has word come down the secret network of male Jewish atheist conservative New Yorkers of a coming purge? But–but, my loyalty has never been questioned! I read all the headlines as ordered, slavnyĭ lider!

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Sure, we do our best to vote him out.

That said, I might not be voting Republican.

I am ever recalcitrant.

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I don’t think you should assume anything, considering the majority of food stamp-recipients are white.

Aizen on February 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

How about percentages?

Igor R. on February 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Nope, whites aren’t a majority of food stamp recipients:

White – 34%
Black – 22%
Hispanic – 16%
Asian/Native American/Unidentified – 28%

Here’s the link (sorry, not computer savvy. Don’t know how to do “embedded” links):

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-25/gingrich-calling-obama-food-stamp-president-draws-critics.html

independentvoice on February 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Al Sharpton, who has incited riots resulting in murders and is a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe, gets his own talk show on MSNBC.

Resist We Much on February 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Bear in mind that MSNBC is owned by the same people that have given reality shows to practically every member of the Kardashian “family.”

Comcast is simply used to freak shows.

Myron Falwell on February 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I think a world with out politically correct liberals would be far more tolerable than one w/o kittys!

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Absolutely. I know some OK liberals, but they can’t compare to our cats! Easy to pick if choice had to be made.

independentvoice on February 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Obama could have punted the decision, or even put in the exception (and by the way the Catholic Bishops argued for a “conscience” exception, not a “religious” one, so that any employer would not be forced – effectively saying no mandate) and got away with it, but once he went there, the pro-abortion left will allow no retreat, not an inch.

They subscribe to the Brezhnev Doctrine on any gain.

Adjoran on February 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 12:44 AM

.
.
.

how bout them RedSox………….

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

The President seems to be so unafraid of his opponents that he’s not the least bit worried about giving them the perfect tool to separate him from his precious independents and some Dems too.

The anti-religion liberal is a stereotype so very easy to bring into full bright bloom.

Speakup on February 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Do you know something I don’t? Has word come down the secret network of male Jewish atheist conservative New Yorkers of a coming purge? But–but, my loyalty has never been questioned! I read all the headlines as ordered, slavnyĭ lider!

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 12:39 AM

No, you will be one of the few remaining. “slavnyĭ lider” is funny, because it’s something like “sympathetic leader”.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Good night!

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 AM

how bout them RedSox………….

dmann on February 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

If that was supposed to go over my head, you succeeded.

Suffice to say, while I follow politics and I find it interesting, I struggle daily to figure out where I should stand when it comes to national elections. Why? Because I am a Christian first and I value principles far more than pragmatism.

Thus I’ve voted third party before as a matter of conscience and will probably do so again.

I don’t play the game because I don’t accept the rules, even though I know that this is the hand and rules we’ve been “dealt” by history, both parties and the masses.

But the past four presidents and the continuing slide of our economy and more importantly society/culture give me little respect or hope for our government and president, no matter who is in that office. Somehow we need to turn the presidential dial back decades, if not a century.

We need another James Garfield. A statesman, preacher politician.

We need to get down on our knees in humble repentant prayer.

The only thing that’s going to turn this nation around is God.

And no, I’m not advocating for or desiring a man-made theocracy. And if you think I’m sounding like Glenn Beck… he’s only got part of the point and fails miserably where it counts.

Logus on February 9, 2012 at 1:00 AM

No, you will be one of the few remaining. “slavnyĭ lider” is funny, because it’s something like “sympathetic leader”.

Igor R. on February 9, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Darn. I was going for ‘glorious leader.’

cynccook on February 9, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Somebody needs to explain this to me. There’s this little thing called the 1st amendment. Why is this not unconstitutional? It seems to me to be the very definition of unconstitutional.

Capitalist Infidel on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Somebody needs to explain this to me. There’s this little thing called the 1st amendment. Why is this not unconstitutional? It seems to me to be the very definition of unconstitutional.

Capitalist Infidel on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Well, most honest people (even a few liberals like Kirsten Powers) agree with you.

The explanation is that Odumbo, and elected democrats (i.e. “liberals” who don’t give a rat’s @ss about Liberty) don’t care a whit about your stupid Constitution. It says whatever they want it to say. Don’t forget: They recently passed a bill forcing you to buy a commercial product citing Interstate Commerce as the authority. (Except Pelosi, who I believe asked, “Are you kidding?”)

Unfortunately for us, the Constitution doesn’t mean much in the US, anymore. That’s why we’re doomed for life without liberty.

RedCrow on February 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Somebody needs to explain this to me. There’s this little thing called the 1st amendment. Why is this not unconstitutional? It seems to me to be the very definition of unconstitutional.

Capitalist Infidel on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

If it forced Catholics to use birth control, then it would infringe on the rights of that group to freedom of expression.

However, it only requires Catholic organizations to provide a certain benefit to their employees in the form of birth control. This same guideline for contraception coverage is already in place in many states, including Arkansas and North Carolina. So you don’t need to feel like it’s a special, new form of victimization:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

From a legal standpoint, religious organizations are required to follow the same employer laws as private companies. If a Muslim organization decides that women should not be permitted to work, there is no exemption- it must follow federal employment guidelines as well- and no, that’s not a First Amendment violation.

bayam on February 9, 2012 at 1:54 AM

bayam on February 9, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Why can’t women buy their own contraception ?
Why does the islamomarxist want someone else to pay for their pleasure and lifestyle ?

burrata on February 9, 2012 at 2:01 AM

They recently passed a bill forcing you to buy a commercial product citing Interstate Commerce as the authority. (Except Pelosi, who I believe asked, “Are you kidding?”)

RedCrow on February 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Remember, Pelosi The Heretic’s main argument was that Congress HAD to pass the bill before finding out what was in it.

Myron Falwell on February 9, 2012 at 2:10 AM

If it forced Catholics to use birth control, then it would infringe on the rights of that group to freedom of expression.
bayam on February 9, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Wholly incorrect. Catholics believe birth control is immoral and it is against the tenets of their religion.

It is akin to forcing me to pay for a gay wedding because gays have a right to be married. Irrespective of my religious beliefs, you are forcing me to pay for it. No right that you have requires any sacrifice on my part for you to partake in it. If it does – it is not a “right”. It’s a convenience.

The problem with your (the left’s) position is that it begins with the premise that government is responsible for arranging all of your medical coverage. This is the slippery slope everyone always talks about. Once a false premise is accepted (gov’t’s role in medical insurance) then everything else that follows is inherently flawed.

CycloneCDB on February 9, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Ummmm…I’m all behind the Catholics, and all, but what if you aren’t Catholic?

What if you are not even religious, but still have a moral (or other) objection with paying for someone’s contraception, or abortion? It seems we have conceded that point entirely, and let the Catholics own it.

That point sums up the entire problem with the whole mess that is Obamacare, and the whole mess that is the left.

kjl291 on February 9, 2012 at 3:04 AM

Military officers, who take an unambiguous sworn oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, stand by mute, as usual. Someone from Mars would think they had taken a personal oath to Herr Adolf Obama.

VorDaj on February 8, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I’m still waiting for these guys to stand up. I’m a member there. My (apparently minority) opinion is that the time for action has long been passed. And, every day, it gets worse. Somebody needs to get off their a$$es and stop this regime.

Harbingeing on February 9, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Ummmm…I’m all behind the Catholics, and all, but what if you aren’t Catholic?

What if you are not even religious, but still have a moral (or other) objection with paying for someone’s contraception, or abortion? It seems we have conceded that point entirely, and let the Catholics own it.

That point sums up the entire problem with the whole mess that is Obamacare, and the whole mess that is the left.

kjl291 on February 9, 2012 at 3:04 AM

You’d be a rarity in highlighting a basic Constitutional principle.I think we’d all do well to remember the Constitution when we consider remarks or replies in this forum as you have here. As you are probably aware, the Constitution recognizes that you have the same rights whether you believe in a higher power or not.

DevilsPrinciple on February 9, 2012 at 3:50 AM

If it forced Catholics to use birth control, then it would infringe on the rights of that group to freedom of expression.

It’s not “freedom of expression” it’s “freedom of exercise” which means that you should be free to live your life according to your religious principals.

However, it only requires Catholic organizations to provide a certain benefit to their employees in the form of birth control.

Right they’re forced to purchase a product which is totally against their religious beliefs.

I think one of the problems in this discussion is that people like you don’t really see this as a moral issue because you have no problem with contraception and you think the Church is wrong to be so serious about it.

Let’s change the case slightly and imagine their was a law that you had to purchase a slave for your employee, if he or she so desired one. We’ll further stipulate that your religion completely condemns slavery. Now you’re not required to own a slave yourself and it’s quite possible that none of your employees will want to take advantage of the system to get one, but you have to provide if they want it.

Now, from your point of view as a person who condemns slavery and believes it to be a moral evil, are you really satisfied with an outcome that merely asks you to directly fund slavery though you are “free” to go without. Or it is not the case that your freedom to exercise your religion which means to uphold the values you hold dearly by the actions of daily life, is severely abridged by this intrusive and coercive action by the state. That you made an unwilling accomplices in an act that you completely condemn with every fiber of your being.

Remember I’m not arguing that slavery = contraception, but I’m trying to get you to remove your blinders to see this from the point of view of those in the Catholic Church and see what you’re asking is not a small thing and you can’t brush it off by saying “well, you’re not partaking in the service, only paying for it. So what’s your problem?”

From a legal standpoint, religious organizations are required to follow the same employer laws as private companies. If a Muslim organization decides that women should not be permitted to work, there is no exemption- it must follow federal employment guidelines as well- and no, that’s not a First Amendment violation.

bayam on February 9, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Yes and that’s because in the example you cite you have a conflict of constituional rights. The right of a religious organization to practice its faith against the right of women to not suffer discrimination. You see, a constitutional right like Freedom to Exercise One’s Religion can only be counter-balanced by another constitutional right.

What you have to do to win the day is prove that there is a constitutional right for any employee to have his or her contraceptives, abortions, etc. paid for by a 3rd party, namely their employer. I hope you appreciate that’s a pretty high bar to cross. For example while one has the constitutional right to free speech, that’s doesn’t mean a free microphone and free air time on the 6 o’clock news.

PackerBronco on February 9, 2012 at 3:58 AM

Should have seen this coming.

Blue Collar Todd on February 9, 2012 at 4:39 AM

Henceforth, Obama has designated the national bird will no longer be the Bald Eagle but the Turkey Vulture to better represent his regime.

Furthermore, the Turkey Vulture will henceforth be referred to as the Bald Eagle.

Those citizens who confuse the two will be required to pay a fine.

Welcome to Obamaz Amerika!

Sherman1864 on February 9, 2012 at 4:51 AM

did i call it or did i call it, of course he was going to double down on stupid…

this is dear leader

cmsinaz on February 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM

Obama is really channeling his inner Robert Mugabe.

We have to be rid of this person come November.

Spots the Dog on February 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

No, think air defense, interception, coldwar, Russians. Hope that helps.

dmann on February 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Are you sure you don’t mean Ivan instead of Igor?

sandbagger on February 9, 2012 at 6:19 AM

This would also be violating the Establishment clause, would it not? The power to prevent practice of religion is the same power needed to force practice of religion, inverted.

Scott H on February 8, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Isn’t this already a violation of the Establishment Clause? Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof……

Obamacare was passed by Congress. This is in the law.

PalinLover on February 9, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Obama is an evil man, that’s the long and short of it. May we all fight this evil…

chai on February 9, 2012 at 6:51 AM

Space reserved for joke about Rush Limbaugh’s All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion, and how they would interact with our Pu$$y in Chief.

MNHawk on February 9, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Obama has two key goals here -and he won’t be deterred with anything less than full refusal to comply under the internationally understood consciencious objector status. Let the entire world watch as Obama attempts to destroy the Catholic Church -that’s goal number one. Alinskyites don’t love Lucifer for fun -they’re serious.

The second goal is political: those poor souls in Catholic charity’s arms will be relegated to the faceless bureacratic government arms.(ready for trillions in compassion taxes coming?)Obama and the anti-God pro-death culture Democrats and others, will own the nation via manipulated dependency -joining the other groups the Dems have split off the old melting pot through bribery, or agitation.(divide and conquer is their American history)

Next we will see Obama and the left scapegoating religious people as did that fellow in 1930′s Germany – as Rush says, “don’t doubt me”,the religious persecusion our forefather fled from, is here.

Don L on February 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM

All the Catholic Church has to do is certify themselves as a Union-WWJD-IU , and boom! Exemption time. Its that easy. What’s all the fuss about?

FlaMurph on February 9, 2012 at 7:29 AM

It is clear to me that the jug-eared tyrant really doesn’t understand the outrage. In the filthy bastard’s world he is doing the Catholic Church a favor by forcing them to do the “right thing” so they can stand up to those bitter clingers.

Happy Nomad on February 9, 2012 at 7:37 AM

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss..”

Which is absolutely correct.

Additionally, the power to decide whether or not an employer should pay for said contraception lies with the employer- not a pencil necked know nothing geek in Washington DC.

The woman has the power to use AND PAY FOR her contraception- “use of” and “payment for” being two very separate issues.

The congresswoman that made the above asinine statement would confuse these two issues for the benefit of the fascist mob she belongs to. Much like this same idiot mob excoriated Bush for “banning” stem cell research- he never did- when in the world of reality, Bush merely prevented the federal funding of same. Anyone in the US could engage in stem cell research- on their own dime. That ain’t a ban, now is it?

Stupid freedom encroaching lefties. Why do they always run the same ridicutarded scams?

GrassMudHorsey on February 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Barack Obama says that it’s not God’s rules that matter, it’s his. Still clinging to your bibles and guns? BHO and company intends to take both away from you. But remember, it’s for your own good and the good of the nation. If you don’t agree, well, you lack the capacity to comprehend such a complex and benevolent agenda. Still gettin’ a Christian vibe from him?

rebarnard on February 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

I wish his mom would have used a contraceptive…

easyt65 on February 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM

I would be curious to know, since I can’t remember the ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the ObamaCare case that originated in Virgina, how this political position taken by the Administration impacts the question raised by Liberty University on religious freedom in that lawsuit. As I vaguely recall from some of the briefs I read, the Justice Department did not contest the facts on their Motion for Summary Judgment, and the it was on appeal on the Law, not the facts. At the time, the arguments against ObamaCare on the basis that it discriminated against some religions by providing waivers to some and not others, therefore violating the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, seemed very persuasive. I just don’t know if that issue is before the Supreme Court now, or if procedurely it is not under consideration yet. If it is before the Supreme Court now, it will be interesting to see what impact this current political kerfluffle will have on the Oral Arguments in March.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Romnney is evil too!

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 8:12 AM

This is a concrete example of what people were talking about when they said, “we want our country back.” This type of state mandated religous persecution would never have been CONSIDERED in the country they want back…. and by the way it isn’t going to be COUNTENANCED in the present one either…By an Obama backdown..judicially…legislativly..or electorally, this is going to be rveresed.

bluesdoc70 on February 9, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Besides, how many divisions does the Pope have?

Don’t let the funny costumes fool you… the Swiss Guard are badasses.

crazy_legs on February 9, 2012 at 8:21 AM

We won’t know what’s in the bill until we pass it!

mel23059 on February 9, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4